Alignments... the Ultimate Sacred Cow

[LoneWolf23]

So you'd have to agree that it is possible to be a good Assassin. What if the Assassin's guild in a kingdom was controlled by the king and the Master of Assassins was a loyal subject. If the King sent his Assassins out to kill an opposing kingdom's key generals so as to disrupt plans for invasion wouldn't that be a good act? What about the opposing kingdom, wouldn't they consider that same act evil? Good and Evil (in relation to the PC races) is all based upon point of view. Really the only time Good and Evil is an absolute for alignments is when you are dealing with Celestials and Fiends, creatures whose very essence is made up of Good or Evil.

Except that such a character would technically be something like a Slayer of Domiel, a shadowy operative who's dedicated towards protecting the innocent by delivering swift justice to the wicked. The way I see the Assassin Prestige Class is as a member of a Society of Assassins, ruthless killers who will kill ANYONE for money, no questions asked. Heck, the Prestige Class' prerequisites include "Killing an individual for no other reason then joining the Assassins". The way I see the Assassins are as organised sociopathic killers, and little more else.

If you want Good characters to kill an evil empire's invading army's general, just call on some adventurers.

 

[Kichwas]

Morality is too complex for alignment.

Alignment serves no productive purpose in the game. Even spells like 'detect evil' are easier to deal with when constrain by an artifical construct like alignment, but instead allowed to consider an actual moral compass.

Alignment is there in the game due to it's roots in 70's wargaming and the need for factions.

It's a barrier to complex roleplay, and often even to simplistic roleplay.

 

[Crothian]

It's a barrier to complex roleplay, and often even to simplistic roleplay.

How is it a barrier? I've always used alignments and it has never caused us a single problem with role playing.

 

[shawnsse]

Most people in our society consider themselves Lawful Good but how many people would look around for the proper owner if they found a $20 bill lying on the sidewalk?

I happen to be a neutral evil bastard. I care less much a about the law. If it is useful to me, good; if it's not, who cares, man.

I am very selfish, even if I do good deeds it's because I want people to like me, so I can get what I want from them.

See, I'm not LG stupid fool.

Shawn

 

[Acid_crash]

I happen to be a neutral evil bastard. I care less much a about the law. If it is useful to me, good; if it's not, who cares, man.

I am very selfish, even if I do good deeds it's because I want people to like me, so I can get what I want from them.

See, I'm not LG stupid fool.

Shawn

and yet you admitted to being neutral evil...I don't know if a neutral evil person would admit to being neutral evil.

as for my games, I have decided to adapt monte cook's version of alignments in Arcana Unearthed. That's my feelings on them.

 

[LGodamus]

and yet you admitted to being neutral evil...I don't know if a neutral evil person would admit to being neutral evil.

as for my games, I have decided to adapt monte cook's version of alignments in Arcana Unearthed. That's my feelings on them.

Of course he admitted it, internet anonymity allows people to say things they wouldnt face to face

 

[I'm A Banana]

Alignment works fine, and the game would also work fine without it.

It's really a choice between: do you want the people of your world to say and know that they are on Side A, Side B, Side C, Side D, or somewhere in between. Do you want Good Guys and Bad Guys? Society and Anarchy? Selfishness and Selflessness? Freedom and Restriction? And do you want these clear and defined?

My campaigns adore the alignments, and play with them a lot. Of course, I also largely ignore class restrictions on alignment, for the most part, though I could certainly defend them. I like explaining how a bard listens to the order of the universe, or how a good god can have evil worshipers, or how a monk's philosophy is about rebellion and destruction more than focus and discipline.

The main 'problem' most people have with alignments is by extrapolating from the Game too much to the Real World. D&D isn't meant to mimic the Real World. It's meant to mimic a world where dark threats lurk and brave heroes crush them in mortal combat day after day. The real world is never that clear-cut and defined.

This doesn't mean that alignments remove all gray areas from the game. As many threads have proven, Good doesn't = ally, and Evil doesn't = Liscence to Kill. You just have to realize that the definitions can be deceptive. The adventure isn't about showing that the cleric is an evil imposter and killing her. The adventure is about convincing the townsfolk that you're not murdering an innocent person, it's about re-structuring a deeply corrupt church, it's about the fiends that take advantage of the chaos to invade from the nearby valley. It's just a situation where you need to know the powers of your PC's, and design adventures that play to those powers instead of forbid them or circumvent them.

I mean, the Assassin case is just one blatant area where you make class abilities equal the sum total of the class. A class is an entire archetypal baggage. That's why there are alignment restrictions at all. In this case, it's the guild-hired murderer for hire who is trained to kill, and who does it for greed and personal gain alone. That, in the terms of the game, is Evil. It is a common villain and a specialized role that a prestige class (originally a DM tool, after all) can represent well.

And there we come to another area where people don't like alignments: "I can justify a Good assassin, I wanna take the PrC, but my DM won't let me! Stupid alignments!"

*shrug* Some people have inflexible DM's, and some people put too much weight on the title of a PrC. That doesn't mean alignments are a bad idea.

Though a lot of d20 games tend to get rid of them, simply because of the baggage they come with....

 

[shawnsse]

Of course he admitted it, internet anonymity allows people to say things they wouldnt face to face

Darn!!!
But I like your comment

 

[DragonLancer]

A while ago I did the alignment test on the WotC site and that also appears in the Hero Builders Guidebook. I though that I would be CG, but came out as TN. The more I thought about it afterwards, I could see that the test was right.

With alignment the may difference between D&D and real life is that in the worlds of D&D alignment is a palpable thing. The universe runs on it. A person's alignment (although often played wrong IMO) dictates a lot of what they are, and the alignment of a nation or city does likewise. If you remove the alignment system from the game, you remove a lot of the feel and flavour of D&D.

 

[Zappo]

I'm fine with alignment how it is now.

People who insist on using it (to use a tired metaphor) as a "straightjacket" are going to get the troubles they deserve, IMO.

I agree. Alignment is despised because it's largely misused. In my experience, any sentence beginning with "a [alignment] character should..." is wrong a priori.